Sports Agents Should Not Be Gambling On Their Own Clients (But They Definitely Are)*

UPDATE: A
lawyer representing Ted Forstmann writes us to clarify that,
while Forstmann is the Chairman and CEO of IMG Worldwide, he is
not actually the designated agent or manager of any of its
clients (including Roger Federer.)

However, as the head of a company that does business with and
represents athletes, his involvement in gambling would still
raise questions about the events those athletes compete part in.
It's that potential conflict of interest that should be avoided.

Earlier:

A bizarre lawsuit involving the head of the world's biggest
sports agency has revealed the surprising confession that he has
placed large bets on his own clients to win sporting events.
Should this ever be allowed to happen?

The allegations first surfaced last week after Ted Forstmann, the
CEO of IMG, was sued by a former friend and colleague James
Agate. The two have feuded in the past—with Agate even
apologizing to Forstmann for attempting to smear his name—and
many of the claims of the lawsuit appeared to be so outrageous
that the whole thing was
given little thought by the media. Forstmann
called it a "shakedown."

But in an attempt to refute the most damning allegation IMG may
have inadvertently opened another can of worms. The lawsuit
claims that Forstman used inside information from client Roger
Federer to place a bet against Federer in a French Open final.
IMG corrected that by
stating that Forstmann actually lost $40,000 betting on Federer
to win; as if that confidence in his client completely ends
the matter.

But why is he betting on tennis at all?

Not only does IMG represent numerous other players on the tennis
circuit, the company actually owns a piece of several of the
tournaments. Not to mention the hundreds of other clients they
control in numerous other sports that could all be affected by
illicit gambling. They are as much a part of sports as the
leagues are, yet a league employee would never get away with
gambling on a sport he or she has a financial interest in.

Like the Pete Rose scandal, it doesn't matter if Forstmann placed
all his wagers legally or only bet on his clients to win. The
mere hint of a corrupting influence is enough to call the
integrity of sport into question. (If he only bets on Federer to
win, what does it signal when he doesn't bet on Federer at all?)
And as with the Tim Donaghy situation or many other point-shaving
incidents, being in debt to gamblers make sports figures
particularly vulnerable to pressure to "assist" those trying to
swing games in their favor.

You can be certain that Forstmann is not the only sports agent*
(see update) to gamble on his athletes. They all receive inside
information from their clients—that's part of the job—but if they
use it to furnish their interests instead of the client's then
they should not be allowed to represent athletes.

Unfortunately, regulations for agents are lax and nearly
impossible to enforce. Just look at the way agent Josh Luchs and
his fellow travelers
flouted NCAA regulations without impunity. In order for both
sports and gambling to co-exist and succeed, but the fairness of
games has to be defended at all costs.